Is it possible the United States Constitution, as an informal sense of ethnosymbolism, could be representative of the vast preponderance of the founding peoples of the nation (Europeans)? Granted, our history, as a civilization, is not as deep as any other to speak of, however, but it is indeed unique to history. Euro migrants are just a mere proportion, albeit a majority. But, because of the historical circumstances, I argue the constitution may, in fact, serve as a de facto cultural norm.
The Tea Party, therefore, is a kind of civic fundamentalism -- "literalists" when it comes to Constitutional interpretation -- adversaries of the liberals who dismiss the values of the past and seek to recreate America in their own image rather than letting the historic American character speak for itself.
I think American civic religion is tied closely to its Protestant origins. We have sacred Scripture, the Constitution and to a lesser extent the Declaration of Independence, and we argue passionately about its interpretations. We have a hierarchical priesthood, the judiciary who authoritatively interpret our laws. We have historical champions of the faith, who have been mythologized to preserve the integrity of the civic religion, men like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what role you're assigning the Constitution to the root of American identity. But don't you English look to the Magna Carta as one of the great early achievements of the English nation, and thus hold it near the root of national identiy?
Otherwise, one thing that infuriates me about this nation is the insistence on linguistic conformity. The US has no language, never has, never will. The idea that speaking Spanish is somehow seditious or treasonous--Grr!
@DLandonCole Public imagination is a somewhat amorphous term, but you live in the UK and I, regrettably, have never been, so I'll yield to your insider knowledge.
Now I'm thinking of multi-national states that have no single cultural or ethnic heritage holding them together, but which exist because of a series of discrete historical coincidences pushing them together. Yugoslavia comes to mind, especially in the early days when Pan-Slavism was a winning issue and an increasingly repressive
authoritarian apparatus, plus the need to avoid Soviet domination, were not required to force everyone to get along--well, relatively speaking, anyway. The only thing which would inspire loyalty to Yugoslavia as a nation (and not as a state or as a political convenience) was Pan-Slavism, which was something of a constructed ideology. So how about the Manifesto to the Nations of Europe?
Obviously, such significance as the Manifesto has in that sense belongs to the past. It's not a factor today
Well considering the founders were mainly of English descent, spoke English and wrote the founding documents in English, it is ludicrous to deny the primacy of the English language in the USA.
I give you points for trying to understand America. Europeans always seem to think they know us better then we do. Im tired of explaining to Europeans whats going on. To be American, all you have to do is trust yourself and mistrust govt. We all left or were kicked out of other countries, which results in a fierce competetive chip our shoulders.The tea party is anti-establishment and has the leftist elites from around the world in a panic.They know that whatever works here will end up in Europe
The media in the US, which are leftist elites, seem to think protesting is reserved for the left. They dont know how to handle it, which is why they fall back on the racist card. To imply there is a segment of the tea party as racist is unfounded and irresponsible. Ironically, Europe helped create the tea-party. The shock of wild accusations and doubts of our integrity, forced us to rediscover what it means to be American. We had to come to grips with the ugly fact that we are great. Thanks.
@tecumseh1175 I also resented European high-handedness toward us in the 00s, but while I do see where the connection comes in the Tea Party is not an appropriate response. Of course there are racists within Tea Party constituencies, it would be pretty impossible for such a large group to exclude such undesirable elements altogether. How prominent they are--Well, that tends to ebb and flow, but they do make themselves felt.
@DLandonCole unfortunatelly, but we still have a lot of freedoms and labour protection. workers have bonus each easter and christmas, they are paid the 13th month, and it is quite hard to fire someone just because you feel like it. every left politician still talks about the conquers of April, and so do some right wing politicians even though they now want to end the social welfare state...
Landon, in your Q&A you said you didn't know much about Naom Chomsky. If that is the case you might want to search Youtube for 'chomsky tea party' and have a look at the first result.
Unfortunately the interviewer rambles a bit, but Chomsky's reply is worth waiting for IMO. :)
I'm actually arguing with someone right now who says the original intent of the 2nd amendment was not to protect the rights to own guns, to which I say "who cares?"
If you want to understand the TEA party you have to understand the US Constitution and why it is the foundation for the Republic. You have understand the difference between rights and priviliges. Gun ownership is a right not a privilege. Taking guns away requires changing the Constitution.
There's a 7 hour course on the US Constitution done by Michael Badnarik that does a real good job of explaining the basics.
@justintempler I do have some understanding of the Constitution, as it happens. While the Constitution sets out various rights, including gun ownership, that doesn't mean you can't change the constitution or, tbh, affect the social role the constitution plays.
@DLandonCole I also think the US constitution should be subjected (in a limited fashion) to constitutional amendments by the citizenry, like it is here in California.
@DLandonCole A 500 charchter limit makes it impossible to explain but rights via the constitution are something that you inherently have, they aren't something that can taken away. You the individual have those rights and you grant the government privileges that you can revoke at anytime. Those basic rights like free speech and the right to bear arms are the foundation that is "supposed" to keep the governments power in check. Another biggy is states rights or gov't becomes too powerful.
Well I see what you're getting at, but I think you're forgetting that all countries formed the same way the US has- Nations conquering other nations. The only difference is that the US is one of the newer countries, while the UK is part of the older. However one could argue that France(including many others), are younger than the US because it's current government formed later after their revolution. Also, wouldn't the UK BNP be similar to the Tea party- because that's how US liberals see them?
I cynically suspect that American anti-Americanism is simpler than that. A few election cycles ago in Australia John Howard made claims about what was "unAustralian"- it was a combination of "stuff that's clearly bad" (as opposed to him being for "Australian working families"- or what's clearly good) and "stuff I don't like". I wonder if "anti-American" might stand for "not in line with my values", at least in some cases.
I think another major difference is that the Tea party to a large extent seems to be sustained by astroturfing by large corporations. The sentiment may be nationalist in principle but it's corporatist in operation. Good examples here are the bizarre opposition to the healthcare system and Green technology. This I don't think makes much sense purely in a nationalist sense (unlike attitudes to immigration).
Anti-American is simply a label the right sticks on the left when the left doesn't like certain government policies. However when the right doesn't like certain government policies, they call themselves patriotic.
a bit of a ramble landon thought you were going somewhere but in the end you just didn't make as much sense as you normally do. i see the similarities but i I don't see the influece of right wing nationalist groups in europe being as big as america but maybe it's just that the far right wing party in our country disbanded 3 years ago after the general election and the influence of the right here isn't as big as it used to be.It could possibly be that the ukip and others are more influential.
They also missed out on the creation of nationalism through the boom in vernacular print capitalism in the Early Modern period. When vernaculars were standardised through the forces acting upon cost of print and demand for print, it had a great affect upon the barriers formed within those regions of a newly single vernacular. This was, of course, followed by the artisan obsession with national histories: the idea that old Dutch was the language of Adam is a great example.
@mrgodbehere I wouldn't say they completely missed out on it - there were people in the Colonies well before 1776 - but, crucially, they didn't have the prior ethnic symbols.
Although I'm not a modernist, I like Benedict Anderson.
@DLandonCole What I mean is they were separate from the kind of nation building Europe was experiencing, and the symbolic creation that often sprang up from it as these new 'nations' invented ethnic symbols.
The American Indians are implants too...they have just been here since the end of the last ice age. they crossed over the bering land bridge. they are related to the Mongolians.
@mnewf2002 but they were the first people there so theyre the indigenous group. if youre going to look at it like that then everyone who isnt an ethiopian living in ethiopia is an implant
North Eastern Siberians are their closest living cousins, They been in the americas long enough for genetic divergence to occur due too prolonged reproductive isolation.
@pwnYourBrain magna carta is very much hyped and not quite what it is claimed to be. It was basically a document protecting the elites from too much royal interference and certainly wasn't about nation building or the general populace. It's a fascination and ground breaking document though, give it a read sometime!
The Magna Carta referred to "free men" being protected, Which initially only nobility and "middle class mercantile fell under its precipes, Serf did not, Once serfdom and slavery where abolished that changed.
@mrgodbehere replying to a seemingly deleted reply from Obasiliasfilosofos, it isn't that simple either, complexities like property ownership etc. muddied the waters that history tries to portray as clear. The Magna Carta was important and cool, but not in the way many are led to believe. Perhaps I'll do a series about it someday?
Your point about the constitution is one that I have thought about before. We don't have an American ethnicity, though I'm such a mutt I claim it as mine because to do otherwise would be pretentious. I would also say that the military acts a very strong unifying symbol, along with other rituals like the Pledge of Allegiance.
The tea party combines bad history and fabricated myths about America's past into a single turd of untruth that motivates people to act against their own interests.
The Tea Party, in the main, was/is the rank and file of the GOP. It really is a reorganization and realignment of people that were voting Republican already but were fed up with the establishment poo bahs of the party. If you compare it with the candidacy of Goldwater in '64, you'll see it has practically the same dynamics.
@HeavyTrafficAhead I agree. I sometimes think the Tea Party is just the last hurrah of the '64 movement conservatism takeover of the GOP. Oddly, Goldwater later on became one of the strongest critics of the GOP. Goldwater was no socially conservative Christian and would have despised people like Beck and Palin. Goldwater led to Reagan which led to the '90s culture wars which led to the Tea Party, but I'm not sure this movement has anywhere to go now without entirely redefining what it's about.
@MarmaladeINFP Movement conservatism (from Goldwater to Tea Party) was largely organized by and filled with Boomers. This is why it can't go anywhere. The Boomers are retiring and dying. The younger generations coming into power dislike politicized Christianity, are more socially liberal, and aren't anti-govt. I suspect the new generation of conservatives will return to the moderate position of progressive Republicans like Eisenhower. Unlike older conservatives, they don't just want to complain.
Well, I suppose the only analogy you can really draw is Mao's Little Red Book.
Your analysis of the Constitution as an Ethno-symbol is right on. No one actually reads it, that is besides the 2nd and 10th amendments. All the stuff about secularism and due process are totally ignored. So, in that sense, it's without a doubt a symbol.
great video, and interesting point. I never considered the constitution an "ethno symbol" but its worth thinking about. Also, Love the videos where you pull back and we get ameidium shot!
@DLandonCole Americanism has become a religion of sorts compete with its own mythology & battles fight for the right 2 b considered v real followers
The constitution is held in the same regard as the bible (personally I hold it much higher) and just like the bible those who claim to be the most Christian often know the least about the bible.
Also don't want to be pedantic but I have to call u on ur miss quoting of the 2nd amendment as almost all american do "a well regulated militia..."
@BrightonContrarian10@DLandonCole I could go on all day about the similarities with religion I think the most important is how just like how a so called fundamentalist Islamists totally devoted to the Koran totally ignore any of the peaceful bits where as tea party fundamentalists supposedly devoted to the constitution seem uniformly ignorant of the commerce clause or rafter 2 centuries plus judicial interpretation of it
Landon, please don' t take me as rude, but I felt this article is not incisive or to the point. I am also unsure LatumWay's video was better either. Did you look at your script or listen back to this before uploading? As per the sytle, I felt stood up with the Mic made you look either "Pulpit" or "Standup"and more "lecturing to" in style. It is no great issue though, you are a vlogger, full stop. Your speaking voice is excellent of course and B&W is a nice effect that flatters you.
I can't think of a document that affects another country in a similar manner.
Since we are mainly a country of immigrants and their off springs, all living in a fairly young country, the Constitution is the glue that holds us together. And it can be changed, as the writers wisely intended. The fun part is not only are there disagreements of the interpretations of parts sometimes, but also disagreements about what should be remain the same and what should be changed. So we argue a lot. : )
@saaweeet I agree on the first point as there are certainly other national symbols; I was asking, though, whether there are other documents like the constitution that are so important for other nations.
good video, as usual mate. i think the value of the Constitution is its relative neutrality to political philosphies as pertains to the left/right divide. as i've said in my own video on this, the Constitution is probably the only chance we have of uniting our fractured country behind a shared ideal.
@gothatfunk: But when did Uniting your country became an end, rather than a means. In my opinion, you should be able to say why you would want to unite as a country and make that your primairy reason to unite. I wouldn't just be a country for the sake of being a country.
@Evilanious it isn't an end mate, it is a means. a means toward less social unrest, and more political cooperation, towards greater social cohesion and material prosperity.
it is necessarily and notoriously difficult to amend the Constitution. the last major effort that i can recall was the ERA, aka Equal Rights Amendment. in this modern climate of polarised politics, amending the Constitution would be even more difficult.
the only part i can think of that might get broad support, would be if moves were made to repeal the 16th amendment. but that can't be done without an alternative already in place for financing the government.
Landon, the landscape in your recent videos suggests that you fell in to a black hole. When you get hungry, just let us know which one you're in and we will toss in a bag of crisps.
I think it's false to say that "American" as an adjective does not connote am ethnic identity - it shouldn't but to many, especially the type of people who are likely to accuse others of being unamerican/anti-american or not being part of "the real America" (Palin), it *does* imply a racial identity.
There is an obvious but unstated (for obvious reasons) ethnic makeup to the tea party - northern Europeans who've been in the US for enough generations to have no wider identity.
@EquitoErgoSum cont. the Constitution is essentially a fetish. Its contents are largely incidental (as attested by the likelihood of any TP member having read beyond the second amendment). Its function is religious - it provides legitimacy and authority without recourse to argument is an identical (and not unrelated way) to the manner in which scripture can be quotes to trump all opposition.
The U.S constitution is not comparable to scripture, The purpose of its function ls well detailed and explained by its authors, Your right that most Tea Party folk have never read it and probably couldn't point out anything beyond amend 1 & 2. The constitution is not like the law of Mose or the quran, the main articles act as pillars & foundational supports but its not "unchanging", it was intended to be expanded upon & innovated to adapt to the needs and changes of the future.
@Obasiliasfilosofos I'm not saying it actually *is* like scripture, I'm saying that for many TPers it's functionally analogous -a totem of belief and identity. It's quoted as absolute and unquestionable - if you disagree with it then you're not a *real* American in a similar way to disagreeing with the bible might make you not-a-real-christian. The "founding fathers" are cited as if they were bearers of some revealed truth rather than just a bunch of fallible humans.
@DLandonCole and is viewed with similar suspicion by the TP demographic. There's a strange sort of originalism present in both cases and a mistrust of the whole idea of modern interpretation (legal or religious)... which leads us to the elephant in the room... TPers in the US are reluctant to say outright that America is a *white* nation, but they are damn sure that it's a Christian one so ethnic identity is partially replaced by religious identity - but only partially.
When the integration in Europe will go on then there probably will be a uniform anti eu party the same way as the tea party. There can never be a USE like USA because the national roots are way more stronger then in the US. Most people see the benefit of a single Europe, but nobody wants to let go of the nation state. A constitution would not fix that.
@DLandonCole It was boring because you used words over five letters, didn't have bright shiny things to look at, and worst of all didn't have a booty shaking video as an intermission. Geez, Landon! Get with the program , mate! ;)
Most of the world is adverse to the idea that people should have the right to bare arms, The Firearms Act of 1995 does not recognize self-defense as a valid reason to acquire a firearm in Canada which is unfathomable in the U.S, The hunting rifle is still socially acceptable up north since there is a problem with bears and recreational hunting is still popular, Farmers and shepherds are the main gun owners in Canada, Since predators tend to find livestock rather tasty.
Btw thanks for the enlightened response. Most responses I got initially were people thinking I was equating americans hating their own country with americans simply being critical of their own nation. Thanks again. Liked, faved and featured.
Hehe I think you gave my video a bit too much credit. I was basically just saying "GOD why do you hate your country so much?! Jesus!"
But are you saying that many americans are 'anti-american' because america is so diverse that america doesn't have a pre-modern ethnic symbol that applies to everyone? Or maybe that its simply so big, that there is a massive difference of opinion and beliefs among people who all classify as 'Americans', and so many americans dislike A LOT of other americans?
@LatumWay Not at all. It was provocative and interesting. It got me thinking, and that always makes me happy.
I think it's a combination of the two but the former is more important. I think it's something like the occasional crises that affect any society cause people to look for fixed, cultural reference points; in the US, that ends up with something like the constitution acting like an ethnic marker.
I think an addition to a 'document', there can be 'events' that shape a nation, for instance in Australia we very much look to the Eureka Stockade as being a mark of what it is to be Australian. The southern cross symbol is synonymous to the Eureka Stockade & thus is #1 choice of we were to change our flag due to a split from the commonwealth (personally I do not wish a split, but that is getting away from the point) ...
... To fill people in, the Eureka Stockade led Australia towards being a republic in 01-01-1901. This is considered a 'defining moment' in Australia's history & is often reffered to the "Spirit of Australia" giving Australia a sort of 'idebtity' that resembles a person or persona. Another being Ned Kelly (Yes, we are rebels here - does that explain anything to you ;). ...
... A recent result that I can point to was the debate of CCTV - overwealmingly the audience voted 75%+ (?!?) No for CCTV or "Piss of Gov" 8).
Another area could be WikiLeaks (in principle). While alot of Australia is foundered in sever racism of the most barbaric kind (treating Koories as wildlife even as far as 1970's, in my youth) we also, as a nation, told the Gov to piss off & give the Koories their life back. Not to say we are there yet, but the people here are 'Sleeve's up" people.
Yeah, I am not fully familiar with international history & find myself scrambling for references. I also cross reference alot to find nuances & commonalities to look deeper into events. I really enjoyed this vid.
& your Mic placement is paramount. Most of the human voice projection comes from the nasal cavity in our brow line so a great place for a mis to be is above the head & considering you have a high qual mic, you will need "Phantom Power" to boost the signal ...
... - which is 24V comming from a desk or pre amp + your mic should have 3 settings for input range - uni directional - figure 8 - omni directional & you will have a dmapener (-10db or flat) & 'low cut' canceling out all freq usually below 70 - 100Hz (for earthing problems which is either 50hz or 60hz - AC elec leakages)
Now that is a common I could talk you through on skpe where our heads will remain in tact after our exchange - I feel HAHAHA
m8 your new camera is awesome just please turn your volume up cause im putting it on max and i can barely hear you and also the you get this mushy sound on the back when putting up the volume that high if you know what i mean. and then when ever i go to another YouTube i forget to put the volume down so i almost go deaf =(
@csmain Sorry! It's the same camera as before but with a new position, a backdrop and, crucially, better lighting. I need to figure out how to do the sound better.
@MilitantPeaceist The recording on my mic is fairly quiet; when I boost the gain, a hissing sound appears and becomes really distracting. I think there's a thing in Audacity to remove it. I think a lot of it is positioning; the mic has a narrow pickup angle and I need to set it just right for it to work properly.
When you say "American nation" do you mean the Americas or just the USA? Because if it's just the USA, the American nation you refer to is called the USA.
@ProgressiveAudio The nation and the state are very different. The nation, as I understand it, is, per Benedict Anderson, an imagined, political community. The state, as I understand it, modifying Weber slightly, an institution that can successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. The two are related but different concepts. For instance, you would be very hard pressed to name a pure nation-state - perhaps Japan, but even then it's stretching
@DLandonCole things. What you do have are national states - the difference is important - which are idealised as the nation manifested as state but do not exclude members of other nations from their borders. Equally, there are nations that do not have states - the Welsh have a degree of autonomy within the state of the UK while the Kurds, spread over several states, do not have a single political entity of their own but are recognised in different ways in some of those states, including Iraq.
@DLandonCole "the Welsh have a degree of autonomy" Wales is just a part of the UK. That's like saying Vermont or Texas are not part of the United States because they have levels of autonomy. "while the Kurds, spread over several states, do not have a single political entity " So I guess the Kurdish controlled northern parts of Iraq are not apart of that nation.
@DLandonCole Kurdistan is not only the name for the region of the kurds, it's the name of a norther iraqi state, and a province in Iran. I think you're confused from the national identity of people leading them to want to create a nation for themselves, thinking that somehow separates nation..from state? It's like the weird anarchist who tell me government and state is different.
The situation with the Kurds is horrendous, Its one example of why the unitary state sucks, In North america there is a strong tradition of federalism where the notion of having a all encompassing central government with only minor regional autonomy is alien.
@DLandonCole Well, everyone from Adam Smith to Karl Marx have shown nations don't really exist. California doesn't exist, it's just the name we give the piece of land I and others collectively live in. But "nations" are just the names we give the governments administering the land. So no, nations and states are not separate. Just like governments and states are not separate, which recently some retarded anarchist have told me.
@DLandonCole The USSR was a nation. I think I know where you're getting at. That's like saying the USA isn't a nation because there's a separate texan and hawaiian identity.
@ProgressiveAudio I'm not saying that there isn't an American nation because there are sub-identities. I think we're at risk of a semantic argument. Going back to the definitions I gave above, do you see that "an imagined, political community" is not the same as "an institution that can successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"? I understand the former to be a nation, the latter, a state.
@DLandonCole I don't see governments in exile, diaspora communities or some bored people meeting together as nations. A nation is just the name for a state on a certain level. Just like city and a province or "state."
@ProgressiveAudio Then we're talking about different things. When I say an imagined, political community, I mean a nation and vice versa. I'd add that while there is disagreement in the acadenuc literature about what constitutes a nation, it is very definitely not coterminous with the state.
@ProgressiveAudio I'm sorry to belabour the point, but can you not see that "an imagined, political community" is not the same things as "an institution that can successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"? Do you recognise that those are two different (but related) things?
@DLandonCole I don't know why you quote the same stuff over and over again, I'm not even aware of what you're quoting. Anyway, according to both dictionaries and Wikipedia, the main definition of nation is a country or sovereign state, though the thing you're saying has been used at times with nation.
@ProgressiveAudio Within the academic field of nationalism studies, nation is not coterminous with state. I'm using nation as defined by Benedict Anderson (in his 1983 book, Imagined Communities). I keep repeating the same question because I'm keen that people understand the actual point I'm making. The particular words we use to describe a phenomena aren't the issue: I'm asking if you can see that there is a difference between the two phenomena I have described.
@DLandonCole I'm just going by the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions. I hope you don't become like those anarchist who say the definitions are all incorrect because they read something different in a book.
@ProgressiveAudio There are multiple definitions of the word 'nation'. I'm using it as understood by the scholar of nationalism, Benedict Anderson. The term is, however, very much contested and you're perfectly justified in using it in the way you do. I do not share it, however.
@DLandonCole Now, let us set aside the issues of definitions. I have posited two phenomena; one is 'an imagined, political community'. Let us call that 'A'. The second is "an institution that can successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". Let us call that B. Do you think that A and B are the same thing?
@DLandonCole Heh..okay, so you're selectively using one guy I've never even heard of. I'm using the first, and hence most prominent and recognized definition.
@ProgressiveAudio A nation does not equate to state except for the rare existence of a nation-state. A British example is that Wales, Scotland, England, or indeed Northern Ireland would be considered nations, while the whole of the United Kingdom would be considered a state. This is not an anarchist view by any means, it is a one used within nationalism studies and recognized by the larger international political community.
@653phoenix Well this is a really old comment I completely forgot about.
Eh? Nation-states are rare? I thought that was pretty much every nation on Earth. "The nation-state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a country as a sovereign territorial unit."
@ProgressiveAudio The idea of a nation-state assumes the nation, imagined as one social and political community, is congruent with the state, defined by institutions. What many people view as the modern 'nation-state' is in fact often a multi-national state, such as Spain (which comprises Catalonia and the Basque Country), the UK (of which each member nation has separate levels of devolved governance), and Italy, which is far from being a nation-state. I'd consider the US a nation-state, though.
@ProgressiveAudio I'm assuming your response implies that Spain, Italy and the UK are insufficient in claiming that nation-states are not abundant. I guess a response is that I can only think of a few states I WOULD consider nation-states. Poland comes to mind, as does Iceland, you could make a case for all the Scandinavian countries really. But really, most modern states include sub-national entities, either recognized or not. What countries do you view as nation-states?
@653phoenix "I'm assuming your response implies that Spain, Italy and the UK are insufficient in claiming that nation-states are not abundant." No, I just think youre saying random gibberish. "I guess a response is that I can only think of a few states I WOULD consider nation-states. " good for you
When a country has a common faith and were the people are bound together under the allegiance to a deity and its moral Praecipes, that tends to be what makes a collection of strangers form a community of sorts were the religion commands it followers to treat all co-religious like they were family.
As far as I'm concerned, you're all illegal immigrants. My family is American Indian and we were here first. Too bad my relatives didn't close our borders back then. =)
Is it possible the United States Constitution, as an informal sense of ethnosymbolism, could be representative of the vast preponderance of the founding peoples of the nation (Europeans)? Granted, our history, as a civilization, is not as deep as any other to speak of, however, but it is indeed unique to history. Euro migrants are just a mere proportion, albeit a majority. But, because of the historical circumstances, I argue the constitution may, in fact, serve as a de facto cultural norm.
jstack42 1 month ago
The Tea Party, therefore, is a kind of civic fundamentalism -- "literalists" when it comes to Constitutional interpretation -- adversaries of the liberals who dismiss the values of the past and seek to recreate America in their own image rather than letting the historic American character speak for itself.
It's a very interesting parallel.
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
I think American civic religion is tied closely to its Protestant origins. We have sacred Scripture, the Constitution and to a lesser extent the Declaration of Independence, and we argue passionately about its interpretations. We have a hierarchical priesthood, the judiciary who authoritatively interpret our laws. We have historical champions of the faith, who have been mythologized to preserve the integrity of the civic religion, men like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison.
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
I'm not sure I understand exactly what role you're assigning the Constitution to the root of American identity. But don't you English look to the Magna Carta as one of the great early achievements of the English nation, and thus hold it near the root of national identiy?
Otherwise, one thing that infuriates me about this nation is the insistence on linguistic conformity. The US has no language, never has, never will. The idea that speaking Spanish is somehow seditious or treasonous--Grr!
aperson22222 1 year ago
@aperson22222 No; Magna Carta doesn't have the position in the public imagination that the US Constitution does.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Public imagination is a somewhat amorphous term, but you live in the UK and I, regrettably, have never been, so I'll yield to your insider knowledge.
Now I'm thinking of multi-national states that have no single cultural or ethnic heritage holding them together, but which exist because of a series of discrete historical coincidences pushing them together. Yugoslavia comes to mind, especially in the early days when Pan-Slavism was a winning issue and an increasingly repressive
aperson22222 1 year ago
authoritarian apparatus, plus the need to avoid Soviet domination, were not required to force everyone to get along--well, relatively speaking, anyway. The only thing which would inspire loyalty to Yugoslavia as a nation (and not as a state or as a political convenience) was Pan-Slavism, which was something of a constructed ideology. So how about the Manifesto to the Nations of Europe?
Obviously, such significance as the Manifesto has in that sense belongs to the past. It's not a factor today
aperson22222 1 year ago
Comment removed
xmtg 1 year ago
@aperson22222
Well considering the founders were mainly of English descent, spoke English and wrote the founding documents in English, it is ludicrous to deny the primacy of the English language in the USA.
xmtg 1 year ago
I give you points for trying to understand America. Europeans always seem to think they know us better then we do. Im tired of explaining to Europeans whats going on. To be American, all you have to do is trust yourself and mistrust govt. We all left or were kicked out of other countries, which results in a fierce competetive chip our shoulders.The tea party is anti-establishment and has the leftist elites from around the world in a panic.They know that whatever works here will end up in Europe
tecumseh1175 9 months ago
@tecumseh1175 You think I'm European? I'm not. Born and raised in Colonia, NJ.
aperson22222 9 months ago
The media in the US, which are leftist elites, seem to think protesting is reserved for the left. They dont know how to handle it, which is why they fall back on the racist card. To imply there is a segment of the tea party as racist is unfounded and irresponsible. Ironically, Europe helped create the tea-party. The shock of wild accusations and doubts of our integrity, forced us to rediscover what it means to be American. We had to come to grips with the ugly fact that we are great. Thanks.
tecumseh1175 9 months ago
@tecumseh1175 I also resented European high-handedness toward us in the 00s, but while I do see where the connection comes in the Tea Party is not an appropriate response. Of course there are racists within Tea Party constituencies, it would be pretty impossible for such a large group to exclude such undesirable elements altogether. How prominent they are--Well, that tends to ebb and flow, but they do make themselves felt.
aperson22222 9 months ago
I will relisten when you have fixed the volume thing and repost...
Sorry!
bobster451 1 year ago
Shifty Eyes - Nervous Disposition - Tell You Anything ???
PCLA7 1 year ago
the first constitution after the carnation Revolution in Portugal.
TheRedHippie74 1 year ago
@TheRedHippie74 But it's been changed twice since then, hasn't it?
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole unfortunatelly, but we still have a lot of freedoms and labour protection. workers have bonus each easter and christmas, they are paid the 13th month, and it is quite hard to fire someone just because you feel like it. every left politician still talks about the conquers of April, and so do some right wing politicians even though they now want to end the social welfare state...
TheRedHippie74 1 year ago
Landon, in your Q&A you said you didn't know much about Naom Chomsky. If that is the case you might want to search Youtube for 'chomsky tea party' and have a look at the first result.
Unfortunately the interviewer rambles a bit, but Chomsky's reply is worth waiting for IMO. :)
jeevesbond 1 year ago
@jeevesbond I will certainly have a look!
DLandonCole 1 year ago
I'm actually arguing with someone right now who says the original intent of the 2nd amendment was not to protect the rights to own guns, to which I say "who cares?"
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
If you want to understand the TEA party you have to understand the US Constitution and why it is the foundation for the Republic. You have understand the difference between rights and priviliges. Gun ownership is a right not a privilege. Taking guns away requires changing the Constitution.
There's a 7 hour course on the US Constitution done by Michael Badnarik that does a real good job of explaining the basics.
watch?v=_nOMbfsgZ9s
justintempler 1 year ago
@justintempler I do have some understanding of the Constitution, as it happens. While the Constitution sets out various rights, including gun ownership, that doesn't mean you can't change the constitution or, tbh, affect the social role the constitution plays.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole The Constitution is not etched in stone, though people nowadays like to think it is.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio I absolutely agree - hence why it's at twenty-seven amendments!
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole I also think the US constitution should be subjected (in a limited fashion) to constitutional amendments by the citizenry, like it is here in California.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@DLandonCole A 500 charchter limit makes it impossible to explain but rights via the constitution are something that you inherently have, they aren't something that can taken away. You the individual have those rights and you grant the government privileges that you can revoke at anytime. Those basic rights like free speech and the right to bear arms are the foundation that is "supposed" to keep the governments power in check. Another biggy is states rights or gov't becomes too powerful.
justintempler 1 year ago
Even with my volume at full crank, I still can't hear you.
Bobbiethejean 1 year ago
Like the B&W stylee. Stylish but doesnt distract.
And hides the ginger beard.
LiamE69 1 year ago
Audio a bit low on this one mate.
LiamE69 1 year ago
whenever i watch your videos i have to put my volume on full
lamb4067 1 year ago
Audio WAY too low!
Klingschor 1 year ago
Well I see what you're getting at, but I think you're forgetting that all countries formed the same way the US has- Nations conquering other nations. The only difference is that the US is one of the newer countries, while the UK is part of the older. However one could argue that France(including many others), are younger than the US because it's current government formed later after their revolution. Also, wouldn't the UK BNP be similar to the Tea party- because that's how US liberals see them?
Drknoble 1 year ago
I cynically suspect that American anti-Americanism is simpler than that. A few election cycles ago in Australia John Howard made claims about what was "unAustralian"- it was a combination of "stuff that's clearly bad" (as opposed to him being for "Australian working families"- or what's clearly good) and "stuff I don't like". I wonder if "anti-American" might stand for "not in line with my values", at least in some cases.
golddiggingants 1 year ago
I think another major difference is that the Tea party to a large extent seems to be sustained by astroturfing by large corporations. The sentiment may be nationalist in principle but it's corporatist in operation. Good examples here are the bizarre opposition to the healthcare system and Green technology. This I don't think makes much sense purely in a nationalist sense (unlike attitudes to immigration).
thorungal 1 year ago
Anti-American is simply a label the right sticks on the left when the left doesn't like certain government policies. However when the right doesn't like certain government policies, they call themselves patriotic.
jabberwock11 1 year ago
a bit of a ramble landon thought you were going somewhere but in the end you just didn't make as much sense as you normally do. i see the similarities but i I don't see the influece of right wing nationalist groups in europe being as big as america but maybe it's just that the far right wing party in our country disbanded 3 years ago after the general election and the influence of the right here isn't as big as it used to be.It could possibly be that the ukip and others are more influential.
johnnyd101 1 year ago
You could upload subtitles for this video, that would, i think, be a easy way to bring the message.
Just suggesting
wybo2 1 year ago
And The Americas, North and South America
10thAngel 1 year ago
They also missed out on the creation of nationalism through the boom in vernacular print capitalism in the Early Modern period. When vernaculars were standardised through the forces acting upon cost of print and demand for print, it had a great affect upon the barriers formed within those regions of a newly single vernacular. This was, of course, followed by the artisan obsession with national histories: the idea that old Dutch was the language of Adam is a great example.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere I wouldn't say they completely missed out on it - there were people in the Colonies well before 1776 - but, crucially, they didn't have the prior ethnic symbols.
Although I'm not a modernist, I like Benedict Anderson.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole What I mean is they were separate from the kind of nation building Europe was experiencing, and the symbolic creation that often sprang up from it as these new 'nations' invented ethnic symbols.
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@ccall003 Technical difficulties, I'm afraid - I will improve it for next time round :)
DLandonCole 1 year ago
The American Indians are implants too...they have just been here since the end of the last ice age. they crossed over the bering land bridge. they are related to the Mongolians.
mnewf2002 1 year ago
@mnewf2002 but they were the first people there so theyre the indigenous group. if youre going to look at it like that then everyone who isnt an ethiopian living in ethiopia is an implant
Hazy992 1 year ago
@mnewf2002 Every single place on earth is an implant and the product of a diverse migration.
jaocheu 1 year ago
@mnewf2002
North Eastern Siberians are their closest living cousins, They been in the americas long enough for genetic divergence to occur due too prolonged reproductive isolation.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
Fix your volume nigga
FundieFucktard 1 year ago
magna carta? originally anyway
pwnYourBrain 1 year ago
@pwnYourBrain yeah good call i was trying to think of one but magna carta is probably the top one
gunnerdan70 1 year ago
@pwnYourBrain magna carta is very much hyped and not quite what it is claimed to be. It was basically a document protecting the elites from too much royal interference and certainly wasn't about nation building or the general populace. It's a fascination and ground breaking document though, give it a read sometime!
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere
The Magna Carta referred to "free men" being protected, Which initially only nobility and "middle class mercantile fell under its precipes, Serf did not, Once serfdom and slavery where abolished that changed.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
@mrgodbehere replying to a seemingly deleted reply from Obasiliasfilosofos, it isn't that simple either, complexities like property ownership etc. muddied the waters that history tries to portray as clear. The Magna Carta was important and cool, but not in the way many are led to believe. Perhaps I'll do a series about it someday?
mrgodbehere 1 year ago
Your point about the constitution is one that I have thought about before. We don't have an American ethnicity, though I'm such a mutt I claim it as mine because to do otherwise would be pretentious. I would also say that the military acts a very strong unifying symbol, along with other rituals like the Pledge of Allegiance.
The tea party combines bad history and fabricated myths about America's past into a single turd of untruth that motivates people to act against their own interests.
Skalawag72 1 year ago
The Tea Party, in the main, was/is the rank and file of the GOP. It really is a reorganization and realignment of people that were voting Republican already but were fed up with the establishment poo bahs of the party. If you compare it with the candidacy of Goldwater in '64, you'll see it has practically the same dynamics.
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 year ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead I agree. I sometimes think the Tea Party is just the last hurrah of the '64 movement conservatism takeover of the GOP. Oddly, Goldwater later on became one of the strongest critics of the GOP. Goldwater was no socially conservative Christian and would have despised people like Beck and Palin. Goldwater led to Reagan which led to the '90s culture wars which led to the Tea Party, but I'm not sure this movement has anywhere to go now without entirely redefining what it's about.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP Movement conservatism (from Goldwater to Tea Party) was largely organized by and filled with Boomers. This is why it can't go anywhere. The Boomers are retiring and dying. The younger generations coming into power dislike politicized Christianity, are more socially liberal, and aren't anti-govt. I suspect the new generation of conservatives will return to the moderate position of progressive Republicans like Eisenhower. Unlike older conservatives, they don't just want to complain.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Another document Americans hold sacred is the Declaration of Independence.
Sabohaque 1 year ago
TURN UP YOUR MICROPHONE!
emperorkang 1 year ago
Well, I suppose the only analogy you can really draw is Mao's Little Red Book.
Your analysis of the Constitution as an Ethno-symbol is right on. No one actually reads it, that is besides the 2nd and 10th amendments. All the stuff about secularism and due process are totally ignored. So, in that sense, it's without a doubt a symbol.
00maharum00ma 1 year ago
@00maharum00ma It reminds me of a flag with shit written on it in an ancient language that nobody bothers learning.
Sabohaque 1 year ago
Your point about the US constitution is something I was thinking for a while now but was not able to formulate as well as you just did. :)
juditK2007 1 year ago
great video, and interesting point. I never considered the constitution an "ethno symbol" but its worth thinking about. Also, Love the videos where you pull back and we get ameidium shot!
Ninjaculation 1 year ago
Perhaps the magna carta fulfills this role?
LucienZakhaev 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Americanism has become a religion of sorts compete with its own mythology & battles fight for the right 2 b considered v real followers
The constitution is held in the same regard as the bible (personally I hold it much higher) and just like the bible those who claim to be the most Christian often know the least about the bible.
Also don't want to be pedantic but I have to call u on ur miss quoting of the 2nd amendment as almost all american do "a well regulated militia..."
BrightonContrarian10 1 year ago
@BrightonContrarian10 @DLandonCole I could go on all day about the similarities with religion I think the most important is how just like how a so called fundamentalist Islamists totally devoted to the Koran totally ignore any of the peaceful bits where as tea party fundamentalists supposedly devoted to the constitution seem uniformly ignorant of the commerce clause or rafter 2 centuries plus judicial interpretation of it
BrightonContrarian10 1 year ago
Audio too quiet
audience2 1 year ago
Landon, please don' t take me as rude, but I felt this article is not incisive or to the point. I am also unsure LatumWay's video was better either. Did you look at your script or listen back to this before uploading? As per the sytle, I felt stood up with the Mic made you look either "Pulpit" or "Standup"and more "lecturing to" in style. It is no great issue though, you are a vlogger, full stop. Your speaking voice is excellent of course and B&W is a nice effect that flatters you.
NoFaithNoPain 1 year ago
I can't think of a document that affects another country in a similar manner.
Since we are mainly a country of immigrants and their off springs, all living in a fairly young country, the Constitution is the glue that holds us together. And it can be changed, as the writers wisely intended. The fun part is not only are there disagreements of the interpretations of parts sometimes, but also disagreements about what should be remain the same and what should be changed. So we argue a lot. : )
phenixwryter 1 year ago
This is a wonderful analysis of the root of global political identity. I think it sheds some much needed light on the one origin of "Nationalism"
whistlingdust 1 year ago 4
@saaweeet I agree on the first point as there are certainly other national symbols; I was asking, though, whether there are other documents like the constitution that are so important for other nations.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
You REALLY need to increase the input on your mic.
DraconianDebate 1 year ago
@DraconianDebate Yes, I do. I'm still working out some issues with the new setup.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
You know "vlaams belang" lol, nice.
Brezable 1 year ago
@Brezable Hopefully the pronunciation was about right.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
good video, as usual mate. i think the value of the Constitution is its relative neutrality to political philosphies as pertains to the left/right divide. as i've said in my own video on this, the Constitution is probably the only chance we have of uniting our fractured country behind a shared ideal.
is it a perfect document? no.
is it a product of its time? yes.
do we need a new, updated one?
NO.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk: But when did Uniting your country became an end, rather than a means. In my opinion, you should be able to say why you would want to unite as a country and make that your primairy reason to unite. I wouldn't just be a country for the sake of being a country.
Evilanious 1 year ago
@Evilanious it isn't an end mate, it is a means. a means toward less social unrest, and more political cooperation, towards greater social cohesion and material prosperity.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
@gothatfunk Well, it's broadly Lockean which isn't an issue that's much discussed!
I would add to the end that although you certainly don't want a new constitution, I think some parts of the existing one do need updating.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLC which parts?
it is necessarily and notoriously difficult to amend the Constitution. the last major effort that i can recall was the ERA, aka Equal Rights Amendment. in this modern climate of polarised politics, amending the Constitution would be even more difficult.
the only part i can think of that might get broad support, would be if moves were made to repeal the 16th amendment. but that can't be done without an alternative already in place for financing the government.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
**please note - the ERA failed to be ratified.
gothatfunk 1 year ago
Landon, the landscape in your recent videos suggests that you fell in to a black hole. When you get hungry, just let us know which one you're in and we will toss in a bag of crisps.
jeb31415 1 year ago
@jeb31415 Do you have Quavers?
DLandonCole 1 year ago
I think it's false to say that "American" as an adjective does not connote am ethnic identity - it shouldn't but to many, especially the type of people who are likely to accuse others of being unamerican/anti-american or not being part of "the real America" (Palin), it *does* imply a racial identity.
There is an obvious but unstated (for obvious reasons) ethnic makeup to the tea party - northern Europeans who've been in the US for enough generations to have no wider identity.
EquitoErgoSum 1 year ago
@EquitoErgoSum cont. the Constitution is essentially a fetish. Its contents are largely incidental (as attested by the likelihood of any TP member having read beyond the second amendment). Its function is religious - it provides legitimacy and authority without recourse to argument is an identical (and not unrelated way) to the manner in which scripture can be quotes to trump all opposition.
EquitoErgoSum 1 year ago
@EquitoErgoSum
The U.S constitution is not comparable to scripture, The purpose of its function ls well detailed and explained by its authors, Your right that most Tea Party folk have never read it and probably couldn't point out anything beyond amend 1 & 2. The constitution is not like the law of Mose or the quran, the main articles act as pillars & foundational supports but its not "unchanging", it was intended to be expanded upon & innovated to adapt to the needs and changes of the future.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
@Obasiliasfilosofos I'm not saying it actually *is* like scripture, I'm saying that for many TPers it's functionally analogous -a totem of belief and identity. It's quoted as absolute and unquestionable - if you disagree with it then you're not a *real* American in a similar way to disagreeing with the bible might make you not-a-real-christian. The "founding fathers" are cited as if they were bearers of some revealed truth rather than just a bunch of fallible humans.
EquitoErgoSum 1 year ago
@Obasiliasfilosofos True, but interpretation and emphasis of scriptural writings has changed, too.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole and is viewed with similar suspicion by the TP demographic. There's a strange sort of originalism present in both cases and a mistrust of the whole idea of modern interpretation (legal or religious)... which leads us to the elephant in the room... TPers in the US are reluctant to say outright that America is a *white* nation, but they are damn sure that it's a Christian one so ethnic identity is partially replaced by religious identity - but only partially.
EquitoErgoSum 1 year ago
@EquitoErgoSum Yes, I take that point.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
When the integration in Europe will go on then there probably will be a uniform anti eu party the same way as the tea party. There can never be a USE like USA because the national roots are way more stronger then in the US. Most people see the benefit of a single Europe, but nobody wants to let go of the nation state. A constitution would not fix that.
Uhmu45 1 year ago
@Uhmu45 Agreed.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
Christ this is boring.
CuriousMoth 1 year ago
@CuriousMoth LOL!
FancyPocketWatch 1 year ago
@CuriousMoth I'm sorry you didn't enjoy the video. What did you find boring?
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Probably that it was too quiet to hear anything, but don't mind me, I'm just being a trollololish twat.
CuriousMoth 1 year ago
@DLandonCole It was boring because you used words over five letters, didn't have bright shiny things to look at, and worst of all didn't have a booty shaking video as an intermission. Geez, Landon! Get with the program , mate! ;)
HeavyTrafficAhead 1 year ago
Most of the world is adverse to the idea that people should have the right to bare arms, The Firearms Act of 1995 does not recognize self-defense as a valid reason to acquire a firearm in Canada which is unfathomable in the U.S, The hunting rifle is still socially acceptable up north since there is a problem with bears and recreational hunting is still popular, Farmers and shepherds are the main gun owners in Canada, Since predators tend to find livestock rather tasty.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
Fantastic Video.
I agree, particularly when you talk abou their being a spectrum of people in the tea party.
TheBoyFromNorfolk 1 year ago
@TheBoyFromNorfolk Thanks!
DLandonCole 1 year ago
The sound is too low.
shirehorse9 1 year ago
@shirehorse9 I'm sorry about that - trying out a new setup.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
Btw thanks for the enlightened response. Most responses I got initially were people thinking I was equating americans hating their own country with americans simply being critical of their own nation. Thanks again. Liked, faved and featured.
LatumWay 1 year ago
@LatumWay Oh, wow, thanks!
DLandonCole 1 year ago
Hehe I think you gave my video a bit too much credit. I was basically just saying "GOD why do you hate your country so much?! Jesus!"
But are you saying that many americans are 'anti-american' because america is so diverse that america doesn't have a pre-modern ethnic symbol that applies to everyone? Or maybe that its simply so big, that there is a massive difference of opinion and beliefs among people who all classify as 'Americans', and so many americans dislike A LOT of other americans?
LatumWay 1 year ago
@LatumWay Not at all. It was provocative and interesting. It got me thinking, and that always makes me happy.
I think it's a combination of the two but the former is more important. I think it's something like the occasional crises that affect any society cause people to look for fixed, cultural reference points; in the US, that ends up with something like the constitution acting like an ethnic marker.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
Awesome video Landon 8)
I think an addition to a 'document', there can be 'events' that shape a nation, for instance in Australia we very much look to the Eureka Stockade as being a mark of what it is to be Australian. The southern cross symbol is synonymous to the Eureka Stockade & thus is #1 choice of we were to change our flag due to a split from the commonwealth (personally I do not wish a split, but that is getting away from the point) ...
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
... To fill people in, the Eureka Stockade led Australia towards being a republic in 01-01-1901. This is considered a 'defining moment' in Australia's history & is often reffered to the "Spirit of Australia" giving Australia a sort of 'idebtity' that resembles a person or persona. Another being Ned Kelly (Yes, we are rebels here - does that explain anything to you ;). ...
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
... A recent result that I can point to was the debate of CCTV - overwealmingly the audience voted 75%+ (?!?) No for CCTV or "Piss of Gov" 8).
Another area could be WikiLeaks (in principle). While alot of Australia is foundered in sever racism of the most barbaric kind (treating Koories as wildlife even as far as 1970's, in my youth) we also, as a nation, told the Gov to piss off & give the Koories their life back. Not to say we are there yet, but the people here are 'Sleeve's up" people.
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist Certainly
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Damnit, screwed up the comment.
As I was saying - thankyou!
I certainly agree that events can and do shape a nation. I suppose the US equivalent would be the Civil War and particularly Gettysburg.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole
Yeah, I am not fully familiar with international history & find myself scrambling for references. I also cross reference alot to find nuances & commonalities to look deeper into events. I really enjoyed this vid.
& your Mic placement is paramount. Most of the human voice projection comes from the nasal cavity in our brow line so a great place for a mis to be is above the head & considering you have a high qual mic, you will need "Phantom Power" to boost the signal ...
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
... - which is 24V comming from a desk or pre amp + your mic should have 3 settings for input range - uni directional - figure 8 - omni directional & you will have a dmapener (-10db or flat) & 'low cut' canceling out all freq usually below 70 - 100Hz (for earthing problems which is either 50hz or 60hz - AC elec leakages)
Now that is a common I could talk you through on skpe where our heads will remain in tact after our exchange - I feel HAHAHA
Cheers 8)
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist That's interesting - the mic is set about 45 degrees down from my mouth.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
m8 your new camera is awesome just please turn your volume up cause im putting it on max and i can barely hear you and also the you get this mushy sound on the back when putting up the volume that high if you know what i mean. and then when ever i go to another YouTube i forget to put the volume down so i almost go deaf =(
csmain 1 year ago 12
@csmain Sorry! It's the same camera as before but with a new position, a backdrop and, crucially, better lighting. I need to figure out how to do the sound better.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole no problem m8
csmain 1 year ago
@DLandonCole
I can help you there, Fully qual sound engineer, broadcast & live.
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
@MilitantPeaceist The recording on my mic is fairly quiet; when I boost the gain, a hissing sound appears and becomes really distracting. I think there's a thing in Audacity to remove it. I think a lot of it is positioning; the mic has a narrow pickup angle and I need to set it just right for it to work properly.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
i liked the video
PraiseTheCrust 1 year ago
@PraiseTheCrust Thankyou :)
DLandonCole 1 year ago
Liking the blackground, a bucket of soft-focus and a shave, you'll have to call yourself "DLandonLawley".
ShallowBeThyGames 1 year ago
@ShallowBeThyGames I'm not shaving!
DLandonCole 1 year ago
When you say "American nation" do you mean the Americas or just the USA? Because if it's just the USA, the American nation you refer to is called the USA.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio I mean just the USA; I wanted to distinguish between the state and the nation.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole The state and the nation? I don't get it, what do you mean? The nation is the state, hence the term "nation-state."
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio The nation and the state are very different. The nation, as I understand it, is, per Benedict Anderson, an imagined, political community. The state, as I understand it, modifying Weber slightly, an institution that can successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. The two are related but different concepts. For instance, you would be very hard pressed to name a pure nation-state - perhaps Japan, but even then it's stretching
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole things. What you do have are national states - the difference is important - which are idealised as the nation manifested as state but do not exclude members of other nations from their borders. Equally, there are nations that do not have states - the Welsh have a degree of autonomy within the state of the UK while the Kurds, spread over several states, do not have a single political entity of their own but are recognised in different ways in some of those states, including Iraq.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole The confusion is common but I think it's important to maintain the discussion as they are, I would say, different phenomena.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole "the Welsh have a degree of autonomy" Wales is just a part of the UK. That's like saying Vermont or Texas are not part of the United States because they have levels of autonomy. "while the Kurds, spread over several states, do not have a single political entity " So I guess the Kurdish controlled northern parts of Iraq are not apart of that nation.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio Actually, I was saying that Wales is part of the UK.
There is a Kurdish nation; there is no state called Kurdistan.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Kurdistan is not only the name for the region of the kurds, it's the name of a norther iraqi state, and a province in Iran. I think you're confused from the national identity of people leading them to want to create a nation for themselves, thinking that somehow separates nation..from state? It's like the weird anarchist who tell me government and state is different.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@DLandonCole
The situation with the Kurds is horrendous, Its one example of why the unitary state sucks, In North america there is a strong tradition of federalism where the notion of having a all encompassing central government with only minor regional autonomy is alien.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Well, everyone from Adam Smith to Karl Marx have shown nations don't really exist. California doesn't exist, it's just the name we give the piece of land I and others collectively live in. But "nations" are just the names we give the governments administering the land. So no, nations and states are not separate. Just like governments and states are not separate, which recently some retarded anarchist have told me.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio If nations and states are not separate, which nation belonged to the USSR? To which state does the Kurdish nation belong?
DLandonCole 1 year ago
Comment removed
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@DLandonCole The USSR was a nation. I think I know where you're getting at. That's like saying the USA isn't a nation because there's a separate texan and hawaiian identity.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio I'm not saying that there isn't an American nation because there are sub-identities. I think we're at risk of a semantic argument. Going back to the definitions I gave above, do you see that "an imagined, political community" is not the same as "an institution that can successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"? I understand the former to be a nation, the latter, a state.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole I don't see governments in exile, diaspora communities or some bored people meeting together as nations. A nation is just the name for a state on a certain level. Just like city and a province or "state."
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio Then we're talking about different things. When I say an imagined, political community, I mean a nation and vice versa. I'd add that while there is disagreement in the acadenuc literature about what constitutes a nation, it is very definitely not coterminous with the state.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Well I disagree, your nation is just a nation-state, just like there's city-states, and boroughs, and regional entities.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio I'm sorry to belabour the point, but can you not see that "an imagined, political community" is not the same things as "an institution that can successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"? Do you recognise that those are two different (but related) things?
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole I don't know why you quote the same stuff over and over again, I'm not even aware of what you're quoting. Anyway, according to both dictionaries and Wikipedia, the main definition of nation is a country or sovereign state, though the thing you're saying has been used at times with nation.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio Within the academic field of nationalism studies, nation is not coterminous with state. I'm using nation as defined by Benedict Anderson (in his 1983 book, Imagined Communities). I keep repeating the same question because I'm keen that people understand the actual point I'm making. The particular words we use to describe a phenomena aren't the issue: I'm asking if you can see that there is a difference between the two phenomena I have described.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole I'm just going by the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions. I hope you don't become like those anarchist who say the definitions are all incorrect because they read something different in a book.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio There are multiple definitions of the word 'nation'. I'm using it as understood by the scholar of nationalism, Benedict Anderson. The term is, however, very much contested and you're perfectly justified in using it in the way you do. I do not share it, however.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Now, let us set aside the issues of definitions. I have posited two phenomena; one is 'an imagined, political community'. Let us call that 'A'. The second is "an institution that can successfully claim a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". Let us call that B. Do you think that A and B are the same thing?
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole I only go by hard facts, in this case definitions based on facts.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio But surely you see that the phenomenon is prior to the definition?
If you want to know why Anderson defined a nation like that, see his book Imagined Communities or the summary in Ozkirimli's Theories of Nationalism.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Maybe, I don't know, I'm not an expert on the topic.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Heh..okay, so you're selectively using one guy I've never even heard of. I'm using the first, and hence most prominent and recognized definition.
ProgressiveAudio 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio OK, that's absolutely fine. See my comment below.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@ProgressiveAudio A nation does not equate to state except for the rare existence of a nation-state. A British example is that Wales, Scotland, England, or indeed Northern Ireland would be considered nations, while the whole of the United Kingdom would be considered a state. This is not an anarchist view by any means, it is a one used within nationalism studies and recognized by the larger international political community.
653phoenix 11 months ago
@653phoenix Well this is a really old comment I completely forgot about.
Eh? Nation-states are rare? I thought that was pretty much every nation on Earth. "The nation-state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a country as a sovereign territorial unit."
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio The idea of a nation-state assumes the nation, imagined as one social and political community, is congruent with the state, defined by institutions. What many people view as the modern 'nation-state' is in fact often a multi-national state, such as Spain (which comprises Catalonia and the Basque Country), the UK (of which each member nation has separate levels of devolved governance), and Italy, which is far from being a nation-state. I'd consider the US a nation-state, though.
653phoenix 11 months ago
@653phoenix Italy and Spain and the UK aren't nation states? Okay.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio I'm assuming your response implies that Spain, Italy and the UK are insufficient in claiming that nation-states are not abundant. I guess a response is that I can only think of a few states I WOULD consider nation-states. Poland comes to mind, as does Iceland, you could make a case for all the Scandinavian countries really. But really, most modern states include sub-national entities, either recognized or not. What countries do you view as nation-states?
653phoenix 11 months ago
@653phoenix "I'm assuming your response implies that Spain, Italy and the UK are insufficient in claiming that nation-states are not abundant." No, I just think youre saying random gibberish. "I guess a response is that I can only think of a few states I WOULD consider nation-states. " good for you
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@ProgressiveAudio haha no need to get defensive, man. I don't think I was saying random gibberish, but if you disagree that's fine. Best wishes.
653phoenix 11 months ago
@653phoenix Thanks.
ProgressiveAudio 11 months ago
@DLandonCole
When a country has a common faith and were the people are bound together under the allegiance to a deity and its moral Praecipes, that tends to be what makes a collection of strangers form a community of sorts were the religion commands it followers to treat all co-religious like they were family.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
Comment removed
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
Minor nitpick, volume seemed a bit on the low side.
Holammer 1 year ago
@Holammer Damnit! I'm trying a new setup. I'm trying to find the balance between boosting the gain and avoiding the hiss that comes in if I do.
DLandonCole 1 year ago
@DLandonCole Thanks for letting me know, though :)
DLandonCole 1 year ago
As far as I'm concerned, you're all illegal immigrants. My family is American Indian and we were here first. Too bad my relatives didn't close our borders back then. =)
thereprieve 1 year ago